Cultural Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Destroying Heritage, Destroying Identity Pamela de Condappa Introduction The killing of a person destroys an individual

memory. The destruction of cultural heritage erases the memory of a people. It is as if they were never there (Riedlmayer 2002). It is in this context that the intentional and systematic destruction of Muslim cultural heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the run up to and during conflict in the early 1990s has been described as a form of cultural genocide, to some a heinous counterpart to the crime of genocide (and/or ethnic cleansing) itself. The topic of cultural genocide is a controversial one, it is nevertheless a term that has seen a seemingly exponential increase in usage in recent years, along with associated neologisms such as cultural cannibalism, identicide, warchitecture and urbicide (cf. Meharg 2000; Bevan 2006; Coward 2001). In this paper I want to examine the potential import of actions that have been described as such, in the context of BosniaHerzegovina. One of the most infamous images of conflict in that region was the obliteration of the beautifully constructed Stari Most, the old Ottoman bridge at Mostar. It was an image that arguably focused the outraged lens of international condemnation more immediately than some of the preceding human rights abuses. It is also a heuristic lens, for the ability of damage to cultural heritage to provoke emotive responses is revealing. Revealing because material culture in the form of cemeteries, religious monuments, historic buildings and so on, provides a powerful and potent nexus fusing both group and individual memories, and equally importantly in the context of the significance of cultural genocide; also offers a palpable and potentially malleable reservoir of legitimacy which can be used to authenticate

historic claims over territory and identity, especially ethnic identity.1 I also want to consider the relationship between cultural genocide and genocide. To destroy material culture which defines or is perceived to define a group is certainly in part an exercise in erasure, a form of damnatae memoriae that has characterised and consolidated the victors version of history throughout the ages. But is this tantamount to genocide? This question will be subject to debate across a variety of fields, however I do suggest that such debates will be further informed by a wider understanding of the role of cultural heritage in the formation, justification and delineation of group identity; a role that firmly places such heritage as an latent weapon in the arena of conflict and ultimately therefore genocidal activities.

Defining Cultural Genocide Genocide, contrary to the views of some commentators, is never simply the result of simmering primordial tensions imploding to create deadly schisms in society; it is instead part of a complex process of dehumanisation (Roth 2002). As such, genocide can be understood as the worst case scenario of a broad, fluid continuum of social dynamics that involves the re-conceptualisation of group identity and legitimacy. Moreover, processes of dehumanisation, which may or may not acquire genocidal properties, are informed by didactic practices that draw upon resonant and symbolic sources of culture, including material culture. Thus, for ideologies that facilitate genocide to be successful they need to resonate with the societies involved, and therefore involve drawing upon a shared cultural base (Smith 1999:4). Equally, destroying a victim groups culture can act as a threat to the group, as well as to deny

Utilising another term coined by Lemkin, ethnocide has also been used to describe the deliberate destruction of that which is associated with a group's way of life (Hovanissian 1999:147).

that group a critical source of legitimacy.

Raphael Lemkin developed the term genocide in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, combining the Greek word genos (race or tribe) with the Latin word cide (to kill). The United Nations Genocide convention, ratified on 9 December 1948, defined the crime of genocide as the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to other groups.

Lemkin, had also wanted to include the term cultural genocide as a crime to describe the deliberate destruction of a groups cultural way of life (1944:84-5). He argued that efforts to destroy the foundation of the life of groups would include the breakdown of the political and social institutions of culture, language[and] national feelings (ibid.). Utilising another term coined by Lemkin, scholars often refer to cultural genocide as ethnocide to describe the deliberate destruction of that which is associated with a group's way of life (Hovanissian 1999:147). It is however, a contentious term. There are scholars who see the phenomenon as act of genocide in itself. Hence, Totten argues that vandalism against Armenian cultural monuments constitutes an act of genocide (1997; 1987:9-10), and Denitch suggests that genocide must now be extended to include the disappearance of cultural markers from a territory (1993:50). Other argue that cultural genocide is an inaccurate term, noting that 'cide' implies killing, yet does not occur in all cases where ethnocide or cultural genocide occurs.

I want to look at cultural genocide from a material perspective because as contemporary archaeological paradigms assert; material culture is not passive, objects actively construct and re-structure society (Tilley 2000:421-2; Giddens 1984 cf. Renfrew 2004). Just as material culture structures society, so I suggest that material culture has the potential to de-structure societies as groups effectively disengage with other groups cultural identity. The potency of material culture as historically and socially constructed discourse must also be considered as a factor in intentional attempts at its re-negotiation and destruction. Thus, as contexts change for example during times of conflict and stress, so does the potential role of material culture that symbolizes, or is perceived to symbolize group identity (Sluka 1992:24 cf. Harrison 1995; Saunders 2002).

Archaeology and Destruction

The field of cultural destruction has increasingly become the subject of archaeological scholarship, focusing on a variety of areas including the destruction caused by looting (Renfrew 2000). Damage as a result of war has also been highlighted by archaeologists and associated experts (Pollock & Lutz 1994 cf. ICOMOS statement 2002, University of Chicago Oriental Institute Statement of Concern 2003). Both ICOMOS and the Oriental Institute have called upon authorities in charge in Iraq to comply with the requirements set out by the Hague Convention on the protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1956).2 International recognition of the importance of heritage led to the destruction of the Mostar Bridge and areas of

However, this convention has not been ratified by either the US or UK (cf. Merryman 1986).

Dubrovnik being prosecuted as a war crime by the ITCY (Prott, de la Torre & Levin 2001:13), and Colin Renfrew has argued that the time is ripe for an international convention to make the destruction of cultural artefacts a crime against humanity (Bone 2001). The destruction of the Bamiyam Buddhas by the Taliban (ColwellChanthaphonh 2003, Meskell 2002) also attracted worldwide condemnation. Such landmarks have been described as prized targets for terrorists targeting the cultural icons that bind and inspire communities around the world (Meskell 2002:557; Perry & Burnham 2001:3). Decried as cultural terrorism the iconic destruction in Afghanistan amounted to a provocative affirmation of sovereignty not only upon the territory but also upon values (Gamboni 2001:11). It is this conflation of material culture and values that makes the arena of cultural destruction so potent. This position reflects the international recognition of the importance of cultural heritage. Thus UNESCOs draft declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage states that cultural heritage is a component of cultural identity and social cohesion so that its intentional destruction may have adverse consequences on human dignity and human rights.

Philip Roth, the head of the influential organisation, Human Rights Watch has argued that; 'understanding the architecture of a society is valuable not only in its own right...but also as a blueprint for change. It helps us identify the social pathologies that lead to human rights abuse and the steps that can be taken to end or to prevent them' (2002:ix). Archaeology as a discipline is equipped with the theoretical tools necessary to elucidate some of the processes behind such social pathologies, and arguably has a responsibility to do so (cf. Carman 1997). This is not to suggest that the discipline is itself entirely objective. Indeed, it has been increasingly recognized that

archaeological and historical narratives are deeply imbricated within sociopolitical realities (Meskell 1998:2 cf. Abu El-Haj 2001; Atkinson, Banks & OSullivan 1996, Daz-Andreu & Champion 1996, Galaty & Watkinson 2004; Hall 2000, Kane 2003; Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Silberman 1989). In particular, the work of Gustav Kossina, which was influential in propagating ideas that supported the agenda of the Third Reich, has been discussed as one of the darker points in archaeology's history (Arnold 2002 cf. Arnold 1990; Arnold & Hassmann 1995; Hrke 2002; Hassmann 2002; Junker 1998; Wiwjorra 1996). Archaeologists are well aware of the passion and violence that...surround the right to possess a culture, and themselves play a role in such discourses (Layton, Thomas and Stone 2001). Thus, material culture provides a tangible nexus that combines culture, identity and power, and a means to re-negotiate such relationships. Discourses that parallel and draw upon this potent combination have been critical elements in the vocabulary of many genocidal regimes.

Material conditions radically shape human actions, creating a charged field through which power-relations operate (Graves-Brown 2000). Mead described artifacts as collapsed acts in that they embody all that has been enacted upon them (1934 cf. Appadurai 1986; Gell 1998). Understanding how such artifacts are used in cultural strategies of destruction may therefore be a heuristic process. Halpern has argued that there is a need for an ethno-archaeology of architectural destruction to understand acts, which manifest strongly held cultural values (1993:2). Material culture makes up symbolic and cultural landscapes which create a particularity of place, they also act as narratives of collective memory that underpin the cohesion and identity of groups (Meharg 2001 cf. Connerton 1989; Fentress & Wickham 1992; Gillis 1994; Halbwachs 1992; Hutton 1993, Nora 1996). Destruction or debasement of such

landscapes therefore has the power to revise memory to the point where group identity is itself endangered. Such destruction often takes place during times of stress and conflict where groups feel the need to reappraise and reassert the past through material processes. Rowlands has also noted that materiality is peculiarly responsive to claims of authenticity and possession of unique identities (2002:108). Conversely if the past resists revision, it can simply be destroyed (Rathje 1999:94). Cultural memory has been described as highly selective, it highlights and foregrounds whilst at the same time it silences and disavows, eliding those episodes that form the opportunity for alternate narratives (Hall 2001:5). Cultural genocide therefore threatens such opportunities, critically impacting on emic and etic conceptualisations of group identity.

Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovinia Bosnia-Herzegovina had a distinct identity. It owed this distinction and its political autonomy to two factors. One that is sat astride the main trade route from the East, leading across Asia Minor towards Venice at the top of the Adriatic, which was Europes gateway to the Orient. Since the Middle Ages, Bosnia had been a complex and multi-faceted society, where cultural and religious influences had met and impacted on each other. Alone in medieval Europe, the Kingdom of Bosnia was a place where three Christian churches, Roman Catholicism and schismatic local Bosnian church, and around 500 years ago Islam arrived, by the 1700s more than half the population had adopted the faith (Riedlmayer 2002:102). This is the second factor that made Bosnian heritage so rich, as Ottoman sultans, including Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent poured wealth into architectural and urban building projects, as a distinct Bosnian-Muslim culture was formed also reflecting the cosmopolitan nature

of the region and its influences (ibid.). Among the new Ottoman towns in Bosnia were Sarajevo, Banja Luka and Mostar, these were towns where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived, worked and worshipped.

Riedlmayer has written that the placement of architecture is an intentional, thoughtful, political act. People who cannot stand the thought of each other will not build their houses and the most important monuments of their religious and communal life in the shadows of those others. The mutual acceptance of communities is also illustrated by architecture as building styles became cross-cultural, there are a number of mosques in Bosnia which have the look of medieval churches, with minarets that resemble Romanesque church steeples. Cultural heritage in Bosnia to put it reflected a multicultural, urbane and sophisticated society, which apparently crossed symbolic boundaries relatively un-problematically. This is not to suggest that society was totally harmonious, but that the architectural landscape does suggest a certain amount of cohesion.

Cultural Destruction

The Bosnian war was characterised by the deliberate targeting and destruction of cultural, religious and historic landmarks. Targets included: the National Library at Sarajevo, the Regional Archives in Mostar, local and national museums, the Academy of Music, the National Gallery, entire historic districts, Muslim and Jewish cemeteries and particularly places of worship. It is important to point out that the heritage of all ethnicities were damaged, but by far the worst damage occurred to Muslim heritage. The total number of destroyed objects has been estimated in several sources.

According to the data from the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural, Natural and Historical Heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1454 cultural monuments were destroyed or damaged. Of those, 1284 were Islamic sacred and other objects, 237 Catholic, and 30 Serbian Orthodox. Other figures cited refer to over 1100 destroyed mosques and Muslim buildings, over 300 Catholic churches and monasteries and 36 Serbian Orthodox churches (Bublin 1999:243; Perry 2002:2). Non-sacred structures were also targeted for their symbolic significance, including the Ottoman-era Bridge in Mostar, Roman ruins, archives, libraries, and medieval and archaeological sites. Collateral damage is unfortunately a necessary fact of warfare, whilst this may account for a small amount of the damage to cultural heritage in Bosnia Herzegovina, there is indisputable evidence that the destruction of such material culture was intentional and systematic. Indeed, the worst destruction actually occurred outside the sites of direct military conflict. The majority of destruction has been attributed to Bosnian Serbs. For example on the 25 August, 1992, the National Library at Sarajevo was bombarded and set ablaze. It held rare documents and huge archives of material that documented Bosnias history. The library was located in the centre of Sarajevos old town, according to eyewitnesses the shells came from seven different BosnianSerb army positions. Only the library was hit and adjacent building remained unscathed, once the library had been set alight the shelling stopped but when firemen and volunteers tried to save books from the building they came under direct gunfire. A librarian who was there described the scene; The fire lasted for days. The sun was obscured by the smoke of books and all over the city sheets of burned paper, fragile pages of grey ashes, floated down like a dirty black snow. Catching a page you could feel its heat, and for a moment read a fragment of text in a strange kind of black and grey negative, until as the heat

dissipated, the page melted to dust in your hand.3 An estimated 1.5 million books were destroyed, the largest single incident of book burning in modern history.

Consequences

Material culture presences communities, equally cultural destruction may also act to cleanse a particular territory, for example the destruction of mosques. Such destruction had powerful consequences. One report notes the destruction of a Mosque in Hercegovina on the 27 January, 1993 by Serbian militiamen; It burned all nightBy morning Trebinjes 500 year old mosque was ashes andKemal Bubic, 29, joined thousands of numbed people moving eastward. At that moment everything I had was burned down he said Its not that my family was burned down, but its my foundation that burned. I was destroyed.4 In the eastern Bosnian town of Zvornik, there were once a dozen mosques which were destroyed systematically from April to September, 1993. At the same time its Muslim population was systematically expelled. A 1991 census put 60% of its residents as Bosnian Muslims. After the ethnic cleansing the town is officially 100 % Bosnian Serbs, and Branko Grujic, the new Serb-appointed mayor, told foreign visitors; There were never any mosques in Zvornik. At Banja Luka, all sixteen historic mosques were destroyed. The place where the main mosque of Banja Luka, Ferhadija (dating from 1579) once stood was turned into a car park after the mosque was destroyed in 1993. Just months after in 1994, an exhibition opened marking the 65th anniversary of Banja Luka as regional capital, it was organised by the regional museum which had since been renamed The Museum of the Republika Srpska and
3

Eyewitness account by Kemal Bakar_i_, 1994, in The Libraries of Sarajevo and the Book That Saved Our Lives, The New Combat: A Journal of Reason and Resistance, 3:13-15. 4 Du_ko Doder, On Serb Holy Day, Hellfire for Foes, The Boston Globe, 10 February 1993

included historical photographs of Banja Luka from the 1920s and 30s. All the photographs had been airbrushed; all traces of the mosque, which had formed such an integral part of the town, had vanished. History proves that Banja Luka had in fact always been a Serb town.

Denitch has argued that understanding the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia does not lie in observable behaviors, but in perceived pasts as manipulated by elites (1994). Such perceived pasts were substantiated and created through materiality, and its erasure. There is a reason why some of the first victims of the conflict were cultural monuments, cultural destruction in Bosnia was not aimed not just to cleansing a particular ethnic group, but also to deny the possibility of a heterogeneous, tolerant and multi-ethnic past (Riedlymayer 1995:1; Anteri_; Adams 1993; zkan 1994 cf Hayden 1996:783). Denial of a tolerant past was epitomized by the destruction of Stari Most. The ancient bridge at Mostar, has come to symbolise the ability of a culturally pluralistic society to flourish for almost five centuries, despite the very real tensions among different religious groups (Sells 1996:xv). The bridge was finally destroyed after consistent shelling by Croatian gunners on 9th November, 1993, A horribly ironic date, as fifty five years earlier on the same day, Jewish synagogues and cultural institutions were destroyed on Kristallnacht. Riedlmayer suggests that there is increasing awareness of the link between the systematic persecution and expulsion of ethnic and religious communities and the destruction of the cultural and religious heritage associated with the targeted community (2002: 3). If an ethnicity is a group that defines itself or is defined by others as sharing common descent and cultureethnic cleansing is the removal by members of one such group from a locality they define as their own (Mann

2004:11).5 Since ethnic groups are culturally defined, they can be eliminated if their culture disappears, even if there is no physical removal of persons (ibid.). Therefore the systematic and intentional destruction of material culture that in part comes to define such an ethnic group forms an integral part of such cultural cleansing. However, the erasure of such material culture does not just constitute cultural cleansing but actually justifies the process by denying that which had gone before, and in the case Bosnia, denied the existence and viability of ethnic heterogeneity. Thus, cultural cleansing is more than a counterpart to ethnic cleansing, but is part of the process whereby ethnic cleansing comes to be a legitimate and acceptable form of action. In effect material culture became ethnicised as categories of identity such as Muslim were reified according to political and social needs. In Mostar for example, before the war, Stari Most was not a Muslim monument but a Bosnian one, it was the war that transformed it. A dialectical relationship is informed through materiality; whilst groups engaged with material culture that defined a particular ethnicity, the self-same material culture presented a medium for processes that facilitated the delineation of the boundaries of group identity. This dialectic encapsulated and justified more than identity, which as a concept itself is always part of a larger nexus of meaning. Thus integrally linked to such processes were the territorial rights sought by an extremely vociferous ethno-nationalist project; territories that ultimately needed to be cleansed in order to assert those rights as well as legitimise them. Ethnic cleansing in this regard required more than the removal of the incorrect ethnic groups, but also the cultural markers that evidenced such groups
5

In discussing concepts such as ethnicity, one needs to note the danger of reproducing the categories of nationalist thought, i.e. by using the terms Serb and Muslim; yet whole nations or ethnic groups never act collectively (Mann 2004:20).

Conclusion

Material culture is historically and socially constituted, these qualities allow material culture to serve as a source of discourse to be used, or negotiated, in processes of dehumanisation. To re-iterate my earlier arguments genocide has been described as an act that has plagued human beings for centuries: the intentional destruction of a group because of who they are (Hinton 2001:1, my italics). Communities are not simply imagined but materialized; as such symbols constitute agents, meanings and power/knowledge relations as well as represent them (Robb 1998). In Bosnia conflicts were symbolically manipulated to polarize public opinion along the lines of resurgent ethnic identities and utilized historically pertinent material culture in the process (Denitch 1994:369 cf. Bringa 1993; Werbart 1996). Moreover identity, and particularly group identity are relational phenomena; one defines oneself in relation to the other, communities are symbolically constituted at the boundaries (Cohen 1993; cf. Barth 1969). Material culture associated with a particular group may represent such differences. It also creates difference, even between groups that are actually quite similar. Ignatieff, using Freuds term the narcissism of minor difference, argues that as external differences between groups diminish, symbolic differences become more salientthe more important it becomes to wear the differentiating mask (1999:57). Particularly in times of stress, cultural symbols tend to take on iconic qualities which increasing come to define and create a sense of difference. As difference is reified, sameness can offer a source of legitimacy. Thus, Stolcke work on cultural fundamentalism, predicates that formal political equality presupposes cultural identity and hence cultural sameness is the essential prerequisite for access to

citizenship rights (1995). The conflation of bounded notions of culture and rights, provides powerful, mobilizing dialectics that can alternately privilege and negate, intimately affecting notions of legitimacy (Cowan et al 2001). The power to debase or erase culture therefore fundamentally impacts on the legitimacy of a group, and in extreme cases on its right to exist. For just as communities can be imagined; so it is possible that they can be unimagined or dematerialized.

References

ABU EL-HAJ, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ADAMS, N. 1993. Architecture as the Target, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52: 389-390. ANDERSEN, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. ANTERI_, M. 1998. Contested heritage in the former Yugoslavia. In D. Uzzell & R. Ballantyne (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. London: The Stationary Office. APPADURAI, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ARNOLD, B. 2002. Justifying Genocide, Archaeology and the Construction of Difference, in A. L. Hinton (ed.), Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology of Genocide. London: University of California Press ARNOLD, B. & HASSMANN, H. 1995. Archaeology in Nazi Germany: The Legacy of the Faustian Bargain, in P. Kohl & C. Fawcett. (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology: 70-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ATKINSON, J., BANKS, I., & OSULLIVAN, J. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. BARTH, F. 1969. Introduction, in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: 9-38. Boston: Little Brown. BAUMAN, Z. 1991. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. BEVAN, R. 2005, Forthcoming. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture and Cultural Warfare. BRINGA, T. R. 1993. National Categories, National Identification and Identity Formation in Multinational Bosnia, Anthropology of East Europe Review 11(1-2). BONE, J. 2001. Afghan Warlord calls for statues to be rebuilt, in The Times, London. BOURDIEU, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CARMAN, J (ed.). 1997. Material Harm: Archaeological Studies of War and Violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. CHALK, F and JONASSOHN, K. 1990. The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analysis and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press. CHAPMAN, J. 1994. Destruction of a common heritage: the archaeology of war in Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Antiquity 68: 120-6. CHARNY, I. W. 1999. A Proposed Definitional Matrix for Crimes of Genocide, in I. Charny (ed. in chief), Encyclopaedia of Genocide, Volume I. California: Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide. CHORBAJIAN, L. 1999. Introduction, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.), Studies in Comparative Genocide. London: Macmillan Press. COHEN, A. 1993. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. COHEN, A. 1994. Self-Consciousness: an alternative anthropology of identity. London: Routledge. COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH, C. 2003. Dismembering/disremembering the Buddhas: renderings

on the internet during the Afghan purge of the past, Journal of Social Archaeology 3:75-98. CONNERTON, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COWAN, J. K., DEMBOUR, M-B. & WILSON, R. A. 2001. Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DEMARRAIS, E, CASTILLO, J, L. & EARLE, T. 1996. Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies, Current Anthropology 37: 15-31. DEMARRAIS, E, GOSDEN, C & RENFREW, C. 2004. Introduction, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 1-7. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. DENITCH, B. 1993. Unmaking multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia: metamorphosis observed, Anthropology of East Europe Review, 11 (1-2): 43-53. DENITCH, B. 1994. Dismembering Yugoslavia: nationalist ideologies and the symbolic revival of genocide, American Ethnologist 21:367-90. DE VOS, G. A. 1995. Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation, in L. Romanucci-Ross & G. De Vos (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accommodation. London: Alta Mira Press. DAZ-ANDREU, M. & CHAMPION, T. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. DOUGLAS, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, New York: Routledge. EARLE, T. 2004. Culture Matters: Why Symbolic Objects Change, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 153-165. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. FENTRESS, J & WICKHAM, C. 1992. Social Memory: New Perspectives on the Past. Oxford: Blackwell. FEIN, H. 1984. Scenarios of genocide: Models of genocide and critical responses, in I. W. Charny (ed.), Towards the Understanding and Prevention of Genocide. London: Bowker Publishing GALATY, M, L. & WATKINSON, C. 2004. Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. GAMBONI, D. 2001. World Heritage: Shield or Target?, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 16:5-11. GELL, A. 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon. GRAVES-BROWN, P. 2000. Introduction, in P. Graves-Brown (ed.), Matter; Materiality and Modern Culture. London: Routledge. GIDDENS, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. GILLIS, J. 1994. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. GRAVES- BROWN, P., JONES, S. & GAMBLE, C. 1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge. Hague Convention of the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 1956. Cited from http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/page1.shtml. HALL, J. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HALBWACHS, M. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HALL, M. 2000. Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. London: Routledge. HALL, M. 2001. District Six Museum, in B. Bender (ed.), Exile. Oxford: Berg. HALPERN, J. M. 1993. Introduction, Special Issue: War among the Yugoslavs, Anthropology of East Europe Review, 11 (1-2). Cited from http://condor:depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/aeer/aeer11_1/Introduction.html HRKE, H. (ed.). 2002. Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Experience. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. HARRISON, S. 1995. Four Types of Symbolic Conflict, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1(2): 255-272. HASSMANN, H. 2002. Archaeology and the Third Reich, in H. Hrke (ed.), Archaeology, Ideology and Society: The German Experience: 65-139. Frankfurt: Peter Lang HAYDEN, R. M. 1996. Imagined communities and real victims: self-determination and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, American Ethnologist 23(4), pp.783-801. HINTON, A. L. 2001. Introduction in A. L. Hinton (eds.), Genocide: An Anthropological Reader, pp. 1-22. London: Blackwell HINTON, A. L. 2002. Introduction in A. L. Hinton (ed.), Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology

of Genocide. London: University of California Press HOBSBAWM, E. & RANGER, T (eds.). 1992. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HODDER, I. & HUTSON, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HORVANISSIAN, A. 1999. Turkey: a Cultural Genocide, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.), Studies in Comparative Genocide. London: Macmillan Press. HUTTON, P. 1993. History as an Art of Memory. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England. ICOMOS. 2002. The Impact of War on Iraqs Cultural Heritage. Cited from http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2002/iraq2002.htm. IGNATIEFF, M. 1999. The Warriors Honor - Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience. London: Vintage. JONES, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. London : Routledge. JUNKER, K. 1998. Research Under Dictatorship: The German Archaeological Institute 1929-1945, Antiquity 72: 282-92. KANE, S. 2003. The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Boston, Ma: American Institute of America. KIERNAN, B. 2001. Myth, Nationalism and Genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, 3(2): 187-206. KOHL, P & FAWCETT, C. 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KUPER, L. 1981. Genocide: Its Political use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press. LAYTON, R and THOMAS, J. 2001. Introduction: the destruction and conservation of cultural property, in R. Layton, P. Stone and J. Thomas, Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 122. London: Routledge. LEADBETTER, B. 1996. Genocide in Antiquity, International Network on Holocaust and Genocide, 11(3), 4-7. LEADBETTER, B. 1999. Genocide in Antiquity, in I. Charny (ed. in chief), Encyclopaedia of Genocide, Volume I. California: Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide. LEMKIN, R. 1944 Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. MEAD, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press. MEHARG, S. J. 2001. Identicide and Cultural Cannibalism: Warfares appetite for Symbolic Place, Peace Research Journal, 33(3):89-98. MERRYMAN, J. H. 1986. Two ways of Thinking about Cultural Property, The American Journal of International Law, 80(4): 831-853. MESKELL, L. 1998. Introduction: Archaeology Matters, in L. Meskell (ed.), Archaeology under Fire Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East: 1-12. London: Routledge. MESKELL, L. 2002. Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology, Anthropological Quarterly, 75: 557-574. NANDY, A. 1998. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. Delhi: Oxford University Press. NORA, P. 1996. Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past. New York: Columbia University Press. OLSEN, B, J. 2001. The end of history? Archaeology and the politics of identity in a globalized world, in R. Layton, P. Stone and J. Thomas, Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 42-54. London: Routledge. ZKAN, S. 1994. The Destruction of Stari Most, Development Network 14: 5-7. PERRY, M & BURNHAM, B. 2001. A Critical Mission: the World Monuments Watch, in World Monuments Watch: 100 Most Endangered Sites 2002, 3-4. POLLOCK, S & LUTZ, C. 1994. Archaeology deployed for the Gulf War, Critique of Anthropology 14(3): 263-84. POULIGNY, B. Quoted from SEMELIN, R. 2003. Toward a vocabulary of genocide and massacre, Journal of Genocide Research. PROTT, L. M., DE LA TORRE, & LEVIN, D. 2001. A conversation with Lyndel Prott, The Getty Institute Newsletter 16:12-15. RATHJE, W. L. 1999. Kosovo and the Archaeologists, Discovering Archaeology 1(4):92-5. RENFREW, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. London:

Duckworth. RENFREW, C. 2004. Towards a Theory of Material Engagement, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden & C. Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: the Engagements of Mind with the Material World: 23-31. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. RIEDLMAYER, A. 1995. Killing Memory: The Targeting of Bosnias Cultural Heritage Testimony Presented at a Hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Available at http://haverford.edu/regl/sells/killing.html. RIEDLMAYER, A. 2002. Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1992-1996: A Post-war Survey of Selected Municipalities. ROBB, J. 1998. The Archaeology of Symbols, Annual Review of Anthropology, 27; 329-346. ROTH, K. 2002. Foreword, in A. L. Hinton (ed.), Annihilating Difference - The Anthropology of Genocide. London: University of California Press. ROWLANDS, M. 2002. Heritage and Cultural Property, in V. Buchli (ed.), The Material Culture Reader: 105-115. Cornwall: Berg. SAUNDERS, N. 2002. Memory and Conflict, in V. Buchli (ed.), The Material Culture Reader: 175181. Cornwall: Berg. SELLS, M. 1996. The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. Berkeley: University of California Press. SLUKA, J. A. 1992. The Anthropology of Conflict, in C. Nordstrom and J. Martin (eds.), The Paths to Domination, Resistance and Terror. Berkeley: University of California Press. SMITH, R. W. 1999. State Power and Genocidal Intent: On the Uses of Genocide in the Twentieth Century, in L. Chorbajian and G. Shirinian (eds.), Studies in Comparative Genocide pp. 3-15. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. SILBERMAN, N. A. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Near East. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston. STOLCKE, V. 1995. Talking Culture - New Boundaries, New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe, Current Anthropology 36, pp. 1-24 TILLEY, C. 2000. Interpreting Material Culture, in J. Thomas (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology, a reader: 418-429. London: Leicester University Press. TOTTEN, S., PARSONS, W, S., & CHARNY, I (eds.). 1997. Century of Genocide: Eye-witness Accounts and Critical Views. New York: Garland Publishing. TOTTEN, S. 1998. Defining Genocide: Words do matter, in C. Danks, L. Rabinsky (eds.), Teaching for a Tolerant World: Essays and Resources. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English, pp. 141-151. WERBART, B. 1996. All these fantastic cultures? Concepts of archaeological cultures, identity and ethnicity, Archaeologia Polona 34: 97-128. WIWJORRA, I. 1996. German Archaeology and Its Relation to Nationalism and Race, in M. DazAndreu & T. Champion (eds.), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: 164-188. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. WOLF, E, R, 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis.Berkeley: University of California Press.